4 ms·

If that is indeed the same judge working together with the plaintif, then it does still not proof corruption. But taking the case would have been highly unethic

by yaix 14y ago

If that is indeed the same judge working together with the plaintif, then it does still not proof corruption. But taking the case would have been highly unethical. I really hope there will be an investigation into this.

Falkvinge 14y ago
As I write in the comments - once you've corrupted yourself as an official to the level of the 2010 case, you cannot UN-corrupt yourself in the eyes of the public. It is of paramount importance for the credibility of the judicial impartiality that there's not even a credible BELIEF of a bias, which is clearly present in this case.
mark_l_watson 14y ago
A little off topic, but here in the USA Supreme Court judge Antonin Gregory Scalia went on a vacation with Vice President Dick Cheney, shortly before Cheney's case went before the Supreme Court. I may be wrong about this, but when I was younger it seemed like corruption was well hidden from public view, now the elites rub our faces in the fact that they can get away with just about anything.
- bediger4000 14y ago
  Clarence Thomas has the appearance of a much larger problem: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/19/us/politics/19thomas.html?_r=2&hp http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/19/us/politics/19thomas.html?... http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2011_01/027655.php http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2011_01... http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/15/us/politics/15thomas.html http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/15/us/politics/15thomas.html http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2011_02/027850.php http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2011_02...
  - stfu 14y ago
    If I were the President, I would do exactly the same thing. Fact is, that Supreme Court nominations are highly political motivated. You have in your presidency one or maybe two chances to appoint a new judge. That judge is going to sit there for about 20 years. As you see right now with the upcoming supreme court decision on the healthcare issue, the decision is most likely going to be made along the party lines, with most of the decision power hanging on the mercy of a single judge. If you are the president and have the ability to appoint/suggest a judge, you need to find someone that you can rely on to keep his political leaning intact for the next 20 years. Otherwise you are significantly reducing the chances to see your worldview represented in the rulings for the next 20+ years. Sure, the process is questionable, but I can completely understand that politicians see the appointment of judges as a very strategic element, and therefore making it necessary to keep them close. But apparently too close in some cases...
deleted 14y ago
[deleted]
v0cab 14y ago
It is very unethical. Don't judges have ethical guidelines they have to follow?
glesica 14y ago
> But taking the case would have been highly unethical. I really hope there will be an investigation into this. Yes, doing something "highly unethical" IS corruption. If you are a public official and you do one or more "highly unethical" things, you are corrupt.
- JumpCrisscross 14y ago
  This is not true. A judge could be disparaging to the defendant in court, for example - this is not corrupt, it is just highly unethical. Corruption is "when an elected representative makes decisions that are influenced by vested interest rather than their own personal or party ideological beliefs" [1]. The key phrase is vested interests - that's what separates vanilla unethical behaviour from corruption. [1] http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corruption http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corruption
  - glesica 14y ago
    OK, but why would a judge do such a thing out of the blue, with absolutely no motivation? You're assuming that an otherwise competent and objective judge would wake up one day, walk into court, and just randomly decide to do something highly unethical (we're not talking about accidentally making more photocopies than he needed or something, we're talking about something highly unethical) for absolutely no reason at all. Now, perhaps he has a mental illness and he has begun doing things for no apparent reason, beyond his conscious control. That might be the case. I'm sorry for missing that narrow exception. However, in practice, rational people don't just do highly unethical things for no reason. In fact, that really speaks to the very definition of a "rational" person in many ways. No, they do them because they get some sort of satisfaction out of doing them, and that is the definition of a "vested interest". Highly unethical behavior without some motivating vested interest just doesn't exist. The vested interest needn't be financial of course, but it is still there.
    - deleted 14y ago
      [deleted]
jeltz 14y ago
In Sweden the practice is that a judge should not be on a case where there is even a hint of potential corruption. To me that sounds like a good practice to protect the reputation of the system of justice.
- bediger4000 14y ago
  Agreed, a very good practice. Too bad the Judge in the Pirate Bay case a few years ago had more than a hint of bias: http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2009/04/pirateconflict/ http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2009/04/pirateconflict/

by yaix 14y ago

Falkvinge 14y ago

As I write in the comments - once you've corrupted yourself as an official to the level of the 2010 case, you cannot UN-corrupt yourself in the eyes of the public. It is of paramount importance for the credibility of the judicial impartiality that there's not even a credible BELIEF of a bias, which is clearly present in this case.

mark_l_watson 14y ago

A little off topic, but here in the USA Supreme Court judge Antonin Gregory Scalia went on a vacation with Vice President Dick Cheney, shortly before Cheney's case went before the Supreme Court. I may be wrong about this, but when I was younger it seemed like corruption was well hidden from public view, now the elites rub our faces in the fact that they can get away with just about anything.

bediger4000 14y ago
Clarence Thomas has the appearance of a much larger problem: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/19/us/politics/19thomas.html?_r=2&hp http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/19/us/politics/19thomas.html?... http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2011_01/027655.php http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2011_01... http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/15/us/politics/15thomas.html http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/15/us/politics/15thomas.html http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2011_02/027850.php http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2011_02...
- stfu 14y ago
  If I were the President, I would do exactly the same thing. Fact is, that Supreme Court nominations are highly political motivated. You have in your presidency one or maybe two chances to appoint a new judge. That judge is going to sit there for about 20 years. As you see right now with the upcoming supreme court decision on the healthcare issue, the decision is most likely going to be made along the party lines, with most of the decision power hanging on the mercy of a single judge. If you are the president and have the ability to appoint/suggest a judge, you need to find someone that you can rely on to keep his political leaning intact for the next 20 years. Otherwise you are significantly reducing the chances to see your worldview represented in the rulings for the next 20+ years. Sure, the process is questionable, but I can completely understand that politicians see the appointment of judges as a very strategic element, and therefore making it necessary to keep them close. But apparently too close in some cases...

deleted 14y ago

[deleted]

v0cab 14y ago

It is very unethical. Don't judges have ethical guidelines they have to follow?

glesica 14y ago

> But taking the case would have been highly unethical. I really hope there will be an investigation into this. Yes, doing something "highly unethical" IS corruption. If you are a public official and you do one or more "highly unethical" things, you are corrupt.

JumpCrisscross 14y ago
This is not true. A judge could be disparaging to the defendant in court, for example - this is not corrupt, it is just highly unethical. Corruption is "when an elected representative makes decisions that are influenced by vested interest rather than their own personal or party ideological beliefs" [1]. The key phrase is vested interests - that's what separates vanilla unethical behaviour from corruption. [1] http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corruption http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corruption
- glesica 14y ago
  OK, but why would a judge do such a thing out of the blue, with absolutely no motivation? You're assuming that an otherwise competent and objective judge would wake up one day, walk into court, and just randomly decide to do something highly unethical (we're not talking about accidentally making more photocopies than he needed or something, we're talking about something highly unethical) for absolutely no reason at all. Now, perhaps he has a mental illness and he has begun doing things for no apparent reason, beyond his conscious control. That might be the case. I'm sorry for missing that narrow exception. However, in practice, rational people don't just do highly unethical things for no reason. In fact, that really speaks to the very definition of a "rational" person in many ways. No, they do them because they get some sort of satisfaction out of doing them, and that is the definition of a "vested interest". Highly unethical behavior without some motivating vested interest just doesn't exist. The vested interest needn't be financial of course, but it is still there.
  - deleted 14y ago
    [deleted]

jeltz 14y ago

In Sweden the practice is that a judge should not be on a case where there is even a hint of potential corruption. To me that sounds like a good practice to protect the reputation of the system of justice.

bediger4000 14y ago
Agreed, a very good practice. Too bad the Judge in the Pirate Bay case a few years ago had more than a hint of bias: http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2009/04/pirateconflict/ http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2009/04/pirateconflict/